User talk:Ched

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 34 as User talk:Ched/Archive 33 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

• All Archives, Recent

You should state you are an Admin on your userpage

You should state you are an Admin on your userpageVictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not something I'm particularly proud of, but let me have a quick look at policy as it is currently stated. — Ched :  ?  20:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

IIRC, it's not required. All editors should be treated the same, right? Just like one shouldn't put on a seatbelt when a police car is near, one need not be more careful around a Wikipedia admin than a non-admin (if that's what you're worried about, Virginia). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Police are required to identify themselves.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Notwithstanding that it is common practice, there is no requirement to identify as an administrator on your userpage if you do not wish to. Further to this administrators are not police officers. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I've been called a lot of things - but "common" probably isn't real high on the list kelapstick. :-) — Ched :  ?  21:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

VictoriaGrayson, law enforcement are not required to be identified as law enforcement when they are acting as civilians and are not working or acting in the line of duty. Regardless, my analogy was meant to give you an example of why it's important to be consistent behavior-wise rather than being on your best-behavior when someone who can give you a ticket or slap handcuffs on you (or sanction or block you) is around. Admins are largely mopper-uppers with special "powers", not Wiki-cops. If you don't get that, well -- I'm not going to go further as it could be seen as a personal attack (even if it wouldn't be meant as such). How long have you been here (long enough to already know this, right)? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• @VictoriaGrayson: - Do I come across as some sort of "enforcement" or "authority" voice? I certainly don't mean to. I'll be honest, I'm not real enthusiastic about being lumped into any particular "group". I'd rather people just talked to me as an equal. Is there a reason you'd like me to identify myself as an "Administrator"? — Ched :  ?  21:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The only group I'd lump you into, Ched, is that of eminently decent fellow :) — Huntster (t @ c) 21:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the laughs

That is NOT what Cruz said - if you're going post reports, post them accurately please.

Yes, because Cruz is always concerned about accuracy.[1] Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• post
• reference

— Ched :  ?  22:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: if you feel I am wrong - then feel free to restore. I won't be reverting. — Ched :  ?  22:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

ACE2015

Guerillero was talking to the IP about his guide, not to you about yours. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

OK - thank you. I wasn't sure, so just decided to note that I saw it without commenting further. — Ched :  ?  23:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Outing if linking alt. accounts?

Could you have a look at this bundle of AN/I laughs and advise a user if it is permissible to link an account with declared (then undeclared) alt. accounts with the editor's permission? To me, it's a bit of a no-brainer, but the individual wants to hear it from an admin for some odd reason -- samtar ^whisper 18:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a link to where it is "declared"? — Ched :  ?  21:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I've just checked "what links here" on the alt account—which isn't declared, but is not exactly hard to find—and there aren't any incoming links, which makes me assume there's no formal declaration anywhere. There's potentially a COI issue should he ever send the autobiography he's using an IP to draft in userspace live, but in the absence of that I'd strongly advise against making the link explicit unless he specifically requests it. The alt account in his real name hasn't edited since 2010 as far as I can tell, and isn't under any kind of sanction, so there's no socking issue. ‑ Iridescent 21:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Iridescent. I absolutely DREAD getting anywhere near US Political articles on Wiki. — Ched :  ?  21:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

There is something fishy going on here—I have NEVER edited under any other account --- having ONLY edited Wikipedia under my IP address prior to establishing my Professor JR account, and then only under that account (from the same IP address). certainly doesn't tally with either the 2010 account, or the multiple IP addresses used. (Although the IP addresses aren't declared, they're clearly the same person, unless he's remarkably tolerant of allowing IP editors to write content in his sandboxes and to make additions to his user page.) While he's clearly lying, I can't see anything that actually rises to the level of abuse here. ‑ Iridescent 21:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. Interesting. Well - there's certainly a strong consensus to ban the user from the Hillary article - and discretionary sanctions are available (unless that's one of the recent flood of vacated items). But - DGG (edited: Actually it was Fred B's post I was reading) also makes a point that there are others from an alternate view who are not exactly editing optimally as well. I'm half tempted to put the "management" pages (aka: Arbcom, AN, AN/I, etc) back on my watchlist. To be honest - I suspect there is some sort of "US Politics 2 case" down the road - perhaps narrowed to another title though. I do very much appreciate being kept in the loop, but I expect to bow out of all things related to disruption by the end of the month. Given my recent outbursts - I think it best to work my way back to articles. Perhaps starting the 2015 Colorado Springs shooting article wasn't exactly a "quiet" start, but I have a few boring/historical articles in mind too. I may follow along, although I'm not inclined to jump in right now. — Ched :  ?  23:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

wp:an

[2] didn't come out quite right. NE Ent 15:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree - and I'm open to suggestions. — Ched :  ?  15:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

ACE 2015

I will be posting my own supports for Arbcom shortly. — Ched :  ?  14:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Discovery

Not going to happen. Offwiki discussions happen by the hundreds for each case. Most of it is on their own mail list, which is of course offwiki. I've emailed Arbs on many occasions, although I never try to tell them what to do (that would be pointless) and instead opine about larger philosophical issues that are impacted by the case, a perspective shared by some in the community. Sometimes I might point out a mistake with a diff, but that is rare. I use it as a chance to be helpful, not critical. I save critical comments for onwiki, where it belongs. Some reply, some don't. The problem is, you can't filter out what is good and bad contact even if you had a list. If there was some wrongdoing in a discussion, they would just leave it out of the list altogether since no one has the ability to subpoena or search their hard drives. It isn't verifiable. And we both know that most improper communication happens via IRC anyway, so anything that they released would be useless. This case is a giant thorn in the paw of Wikipedia: We just want it pulled out so the healing can begin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I think it is important that every voice be heard. The fact that you listened to me means a lot to me. Thank you Dennis. You're good people - and i appreciate and value that. — Ched :  ?  19:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

A few thoughts

• 1.) Blessed are the peacemakers. Matthew 5:9 (28bytes and Dennis Brown)
• 2.)

Q: What do you call a boomerang that doesn't come back?

A: A stick.

— Ched :  ?  12:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Identifiction

Hi Ched. In response to your message at VictoriaGrayson's talkpage, I'm interested in those identification-codes, like

• Registered 1/8/2014; 5167 edits; reviewer, autoconfirmed
• A reviewer, 1 year 10 months old, with 5,167 edits. Last edited 31 minutes ago. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

One of them can be found at: User:PleaseStand/userinfo.js. I put mine in my monobook.js file because I use monobook as my "skin" for wiki. ping: Joshua Jonathan - I'll try to find the other one a bit later. Good luck. — Ched :  ?  14:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

That one works; great. Looking forward to the other one; thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Glad it worked for you. OK - I think User:MastCell/user-rights.js was the other one I used to import user rights etc. If you're not sure how it works - User:MastCell is very open to helping people. — Ched :  ?  22:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank! Nice typo I made in the header, by the way. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that one works too. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 28, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Lankiveil for the notice, - I will .. consider my options. — Ched :  ?  14:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Today

enlightenment

thank you

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

A most joyous Sunday to you Gerda! Actually I do have this, and the poorly considered "troll" comments (which all speaks to being objective) - but I'm hoping someone else will submit those. — Ched :  ?  18:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually Gerda - this is a situation where I agree fully with Salvio. A motion would have been the better course of action. The evidence presented by Dave is undeniable. A full case only presents the opportunity for further discord. At some point we need to think about what is best for the project, and put aside the agendas, campaigns, and grudges of years now gone. — Ched :  ?  00:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you mean the Kevin case, - did you know that I just said (Eric's talk) we should all ignore it. - I found your comments on the other also illuminating! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman

Hi there,

You are receiving this message as you have been involved with the Kevin Gorman Arbitration case. I just wanted to let you know that the case timetable has been changed - evidence now needs to be presented by 22 December 2015, the workshop closes 31 December 2015, and the Proposed decision is targeted to be posted 3 January 2016.

I would therefore be grateful if you could submit any additional evidence as soon as possible.

For the Arbitration Committee, -- Mdann52 (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Mdann52 and DeltaQuad - I applaud this and I think it is a good thing - BUT, this is a courtesy that should be extended to ALL members of the community that are brought into cases. Doing something like this selectively may give the impression that some folks receive preferential treatment. — Ched :  ?  10:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm definitely willing to consider it as other cases come up. It all depends on complexities and level of drama. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

dream

Did you know that Max Reger composed "in new simplicity" Unser lieben Frauen Traum, about a dream of Mary of a tree growing in her?

(ec) I don't know. How about not informing anybody, - those interested will watch. The notices on talk pages are rather food for talk page watchers. On how many pages did they read that case "Vested contributors" opened? Kind of a prejudice in the title, multiplied. When the title was changed, the wrong one wasn't deleted but repeated, - still had an effect of creeping into the minds of casual observers. I archived "pride and prejudice" once I escaped it but it's not gone. - Arbitration needs to look at arbitration and especially its "enforcement", seriously. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

But can you do that in cases where you're not the drafting arb? Does it all come down to some 'luck-of-the-draw' situation as to who someone gets as a drafting arb? — Ched :  ?  10:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey Gerda Arendt, I was discussing the context of the message; not the message delivery itself. It's all very confusing to me now though - as it seems that now Kevin does NOT want an expedited case. One truly must wonder at it all. — Ched :  ?  17:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I saw that you were discussing context, but could not help thinking of the load these messages carry, in general. I kept those for AE1 on my talk, with derived discussions including dangerous thoughts, - it's where amnesty was mentioned first. I changed all "vested contributors" in headers, don't want such a prejudice on my talk, not even archived. All so pompous, anyway. I also archived the closing of the chapter of my restrictions. Off to more laughter, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The best I can figure is that a longer case allows more time to muddy the water.[3] Perhaps I misunderstand WP:NDP, as I had assumed it was related to the real life hiring practices of the WMF. It truly has become so difficult to understand what is and what is not acceptable here. — Ched :  ?  17:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hm. Sort of rushing this through during a major holiday period might be inconvenient to some. (Not me - I am steering well clear.) - Sitush (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I can easily imagine that it would be best if I did likewise. (steer clear) — Ched :  ?  18:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely harder when your not the drafter, but I can definitely suggest it. How far that goes...your right I have no control over that. As for the NDP, it does not apply to Wikipedians, as per a statement from Luis @ WMF Legal (though he's been promoted since). -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

That policy page needs to be changed. Because it explicitly reads as though it applies to users, short of viewing the talk page, one would never know this. That's not to say it (or a similar one) shouldn't apply to users, but at present it doesn't. --kelapstick^{(on the run)} 10:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for your time and replies. I'm not sure why this was brought into the entire situation to begin with; although I could hazard a guess. I'm personally not going to edit a foundation page - I manage to get myself into enough hot-water as it is. I wish you both a happy holiday season, and the best of luck working together in the new year. — Ched :  ?  15:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that it's worth considering that the way WMF treats its employees (for example in terms of its NDP) isn't a bad example of how users might feel they would wish to be treated. I don't have any problem with treating users equally regardless of their race, colour, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, or lawful sexual orientation. On the other hand I have bugger-all tolerance of stupidity, thoughtlessness, arrogance and selfishness. That's my character flaw, but I'm guessing I'm not the only one. --RexxS (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Since I can't tell who someone is on the internet - I tend to treat people the way they treat me. I'm very much like you RexxS when it comes to a low tolerance of those things - and also adding being deceptive and/or being lied to. — Ched :  ?  21:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• [4]

Just thought...

I'd say hi! It's been a while :) Steven Crossin (was Steven Zhang) 00:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey - great to see you around - replied on your talk. — Ched :  ?  01:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

How do i deal with this?

IN all honesty, i'm getting burned out. I don't have the stomach for such heavy insult, and false claims. I really just want to edit. I am doing my absolute best to be calm. And i'm not mad, or angry, or want to lash out. I'm more upset and disconnected. But why do i get the feeling this isn't about me proving myself, and just me submitting to it? There are people I've never heard of, who make it seem like they know exactly who i am (at least in Wikipedia). Am i exaggerating? Like even though Wikipedia is a place where everyone can edit and improve, there's always a part of it that still reminds me "its the internet".

I'm not trying to take any of it personally. I'm really not. But with how it transpire, there's not a shred of positivity. No matter how i explain myself, people will stick with their initial beliefs. Am i exaggerating? Am i being overly-sensitive? In the past i was constantly called "Over-dramatic". So i don't know how to respond to these situations. I thought i was taking an active approach to just clarifying. I wasn't trying to argue with anyone. I was just criticized for responding too many times, yet other members took just as much to respond. I just don't understand the logic.

Do you think i should go to Arbcom? Lucia Black (talk) 03:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

No, .. NO ... NO do not approach Arbcom. Take 24 hours - don't reply to anything unless asked a specific question. Get a good night's sleep. Enjoy a day doing something you like. I will take a look at the whole thing in more depth, and try to come up with a reply that might help. It's so SO very easy to feel very alone in situations like this - but remember that this is just the internet. Talk to friends and family - and find the good things in life. I will try to find something to help. — Ched :  ?  03:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm just going to give up. If i had to choose between wanting my topic back or not having negative ideas spread around Wikipedia, i choose the latter. I'm burned. I don't want to fight anyone about how they perceive me. I'm not trying to. All i'm trying to do is clarify. I wont respond anymore. Lucia Black (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I do understand your feelings - Wikipedia can be a very disheartening and unforgiving place. Just take a break - and I'll get in touch with you tomorrow evening (I'm in the eastern part of the USA). There's a lot of good folk here too, it's just a matter of finding them. :-) — Ched :  ?  03:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Lucia Black (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I gave it an honest chance. I really did. But Wikipedia is running me to my weaknesses, not my strengths. And i think the permanent block should resume. Its not healthy to deal with this. I've never seen a single editor be put to the things i've been put into. Nor is there a shining example of someone who had to overcome such an ordeal. Lucia Black (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Lucia Black: Sorry to hear you're feeling like this - I'm not aware of what's been going on, but should you wish to talk please feel free to drop me a message or email me. To echo Ched, Wikipedia really can be a disheartening place, but good editors (and good people) are around -- samtar ^whisper 11:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Samtar: I rather just quit Wikipedia. I'm trying my best to branch out in other areas. And yet....i can't. Lucia Black (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Lucia Black: well the offer is there should you wish to try to talk about it. Perhaps drop Wikipedia for the time being and enjoy the yuletime festivities? In my opinion, food and Christmas > Wikipedia any day -- samtar ^whisper 12:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Samtar: I don't celebrate christmas, which makes this time of year (for me at least) relatively normal. Lucia Black (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

	Seasons Greetings
	Christmas! Christmas, everywhere, on every talk page, I do dispair Seasons being greeted and Wikibreaks told, but still time for a little more editing, for being WP:BOLD! So go on, go forth and enjoy beyond concern Your Wiki will be waiting for when you return. Buster Seven Talk 20:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

This card was designed by User:Samtar

Yo Ho Ho

MarnetteD|Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.

Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size Ched as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD|Talk 04:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)